For the sake of humanity

Many arguments have been raised regarding the issue of morality. Contentions range from its definition to the practicality of holding fast to virtues and values. The only aspect that everyone does seem to generally agree upon is the opinion that a moral person definitely deserves a more honourable regard than an immoral person. In many situations, however, a logical line of thought can easily deny the celeratory tone attached to morality.

Firstly, it must be noted that morality and character, although overlapping in many instances, is not entirely inclusive of each other. A marathon runner may have shown tremendous determination and strength. Yet, this is not necessarily moral. Morality often involved instances of returning money that you picked up from the floor or not breaking any rules. Being a fervent law-enforcer, however, similarly strays from morality. Morality refers to personal values and the ways in which you implement them. Everyone believes that they are moral, and immorality is often a label tagged onto others.

While this definition may seem simple enough to understand, it begins to get confusing when we look at specific situations. If, as a soldier, you shoot and kill an enemy, is that immoral? Your responsibilities to your family and country would naturally outweigh all else. Yet, the mere act of killing is generally deemed immoral. When you cheat in the examinations, is that being a brave risk-taker or a coward who does not dare to face your limits? When you cross an empty street but at a do-not-cross section, are you being streetwise or a law-breaker? Following the arguments of many renowned philosophers, the answer becomes obvious when we ignore the needs and effects our actions may have on other people. The dilemma of morality ceases to exist when we are driven by selfish interests. And while that may sound very inhumane, survival instincts are the driving force behind the success of any species. Charles Darwin crafted the entire theory of evolution based on this idea that humans want to survive. In most cases then, the more selfish someone is, the more likely he or she is likely to attain success. But at what cost?

Society exists and thrive because of the people and the relationships that they share with one another. The wider the income gap, the greater the dissatisfaction felt by the lower-earning class. This causes a lot of tension which results in a very volatile society. The more immoral the people of a society are, the more the society will be made up of distinct individuals. The people would not feel attached to the society and would hence not consider its welfare. There would be no political involvement, and the government would not possess any control over its people. While this is slightly overstated, the situation would inevitably lean towards such a scenario. Morality triggers care for others, fostering interpersonal relationships. This makes control and rule over them much easier.

Is morality then good or evil? Everyone possesses a certain innate amount of morality. Parents care for their children, and that is morality in its most basic, simplest form. To assume that moral people are entirely moral and those less moral are entirely immoral is thus a trememdous fallicy. Morality has a spectrum. To where should we then lean towards? That is a personal question that not even established philosophers are not willing to take a stand on.

A crucial observation would however be that there is no measure for morality. There is only a measure for success. Perhaps, to lean towards immorality is a much more rational decision, albeit it being mercenary. But yet, who can say whether being mercenaric is immoral or even detestable?

Results post-mortem

So, why did you do so badly for your A levels?


To be honest, I do not know. I can offer up an incredulous number of reasons, but all of it would not change the fact that I did poorly.

Firstly, I had medical issues. I was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism, and this came shortly after the doctors had discovered an irregularity in my heart. The effect was not physical as much as it was psychological. The feeling is a bit confusing to explain. Here was a supposedly healthy boy, dreaming that the only barrier to fitness was all in the mind. Suddenly, he is told that he can never break past the barrier. The effect is very confidence-bashing.


So your issue was that you were not resilient enough.


Sir, you must understand. I was popping pills on a daily basis. And at that time, I was not making tremendous breakthroughs in my forays into the academics. All that kept me on par with my peers was my fitness level. That too, had just been snatched away.


So the problem, it seems, started even before this medical setback that you have mentioned.


There were other issues too. I had been too earnest in attending lectures and tutorials. You see, sir, the true role of a school-goer is clearly to attend lessons. That is all that is required of us. It is the least respect that we could give to our teachers. Whether we eventually get the A or not, the teacher is not held responsible. Whether you fall asleep in class or not, what matters is that you have the discipline to force yourself to class. It seemed, though, that I was condemned for trying to please. Initially, I was endlessly reprimanded. Eventually, the atmosphere became one of condemnation: the teachers could no longer bother with me. That was a lot worse.


You fell asleep in class? So where does "I worked very hard" come in?


I live a good hour away from school. I stayed back to study into the late nights, attempting to catch up. And the more I tried to study, the later awake I stayed, the less sleep I received, the more tired I became the next day at school, the more I had to study to catch up. Clearly, the solution would be to have skipped classes more often.


And what about tuition?


While it is true that my family was not strapped for cash, it is also true that my parents often complained about their lack of liquidity. And we were still in debt, having not paid off housing as well as the car loans. Tuition was expensive, and I trusted the teachers. It was very foolish, thinking back. I should not have blindly held on to values that were more fashionable in past times. I ought to have been more self-centred, for lack of a better word.


Well, I am sure that you have pretty much to say. But, as you have mentioned, nothing changes the fact. You can make people sympathise with you not getting to drink your milk. Still, spilled milk is still spilled. That can never change. Thank you for your time. I do sincerely wish you all the best in your future endeavours.